TECHNICAL PAPER

Title: Authors: Date: Publication/Venue: Economic and Performance Evaluation of Heat Sink Options in Combined Cycle Applications Rattan Tawney, P.E., Zahid Khan, P.E., Justin Zachary, Ph.D., Bechtel Power Corporation June 2003 Proceedings of Turbo Expo: ASME/IGTI Turbo Expo, Georgia World Congress Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, June 16-19, 2003 Copyright 2003 by ASME

Proceedings of Turbo Expo: ASME / IGTI Turbo Expo Georgia World Congress Center Atlanta, Georgia, USA June 16 19, 2003

GT2003-38834
ECONOMIC AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF HEAT SINK OPTIONS IN COMBINED CYCLE APPLICATIONS Rattan Tawney, P.E. Zahid Khan, P.E. Justin Zachary, Ph.D. Bechtel Power Corporation Frederick, Maryland

ABSTRACT Because of the current environmental requirements for zero discharge from power plants and scarcity of water, the cooling towera proven and industry-recognized conventional option for combined cycle application heat sinksis being scrutinized by designers, developers, operators, and regulatory agencies. This paper is a guideline to selecting the most appropriate solution for the plant heat sink based on water availability, site location, and wastewater disposal requirements. The paper discusses wet as well as dry cooling systems and evaluates the impact of heat sink selection for cogeneration applications and merchant power plant cycling operation mode. For each proposed option, the performance, relative costs, and noise issues will be presented. NOMENCLATURE ACC Air Cooled Condenser CW Circulating Water LMTD Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference TDS Total Dissolved Solids WSAC Wet Surface Air Cooler HEAT SINK TECHNOLOGIES In accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, a steam cycle heat rejection occurs at a temperature that is much lower than the temperature at which heat is added. A power plant that dissipates heat at the lowest possible temperature will maximize cycle efficiency and minimize the amount of heat rejected. For combined cycles, the heat dissipation scheme to the environment consists of a steam surface condenser and/or a wet or dry cooling water system. This package is referred to

as the heat sink. Typical technologies in combined cycle applications include the following: Wet Cooling Technologies Once-through cooling system Wet cooling tower Dry Cooling Technologies Direct dry cooling system (air-cooled condenser) Indirect dry cooling system (such as Heller system) Hybrid Cooling Technology Wet-dry cooling system (wet surface air cooler) Wet Cooling Tower The heat of condensing steam is removed in a shell and tube heat exchanger by a continuous loop circulating water system. The hot water is then cooled by evaporation in contact with air in a tower, and the evaporation heat is dissipated into the atmosphere. Figure 1 shows a typical flow diagram for a wet evaporative cooling tower. Theoretically, the lowest heat sink temperature achievable with a wet cooling tower is the ambient wet bulb temperature. Because of inefficiencies in the cooling process, the cooling tower can only approach the wet bulb temperature. The closer the wet bulb is approached, the larger and more expensive the cooling tower becomes. Apart from the steam condensing heat load, other auxiliary cooling loads are also dissipated in the wet cooling tower. Makeup water is required to compensate for evaporation, blowdown, and drift losses from the cooling tower. Chemicals are added to the cooling tower forebay to control circulating water pH, scale/corrosion, and biological growth.

Page 1 of 8

Copyright 2003 by ASME

Cooling Tower

Hot CW

Fans

equipment prevents trash and debris from reaching the main circulating water pumps. Flow straightening elements designed to provide streamlined flow to the pumps are also contained in the intake structure. The design of the intake structure must also account for changes in the water level due to seasonal or tidal variations. After flowing through the condenser, the hot water is returned to the environment through an outfall structure designed to discharge the water at an optimal velocity. Direct Dry Cooling with an Air-Cooled Condenser Dry cooling systems transfer heat by convection and radiation instead of by evaporation as the wet towers do and typically result in relatively higher heat sink temperatures providing lower cycle efficiency compared with wet towers. This is because the heat transfer process removes latent heat from the condensing steam to the sensible heat of the ambient air. The ambient dry bulb temperature controls the condensing temperature and pressure achievable with dry cooling. This is always higher than wet bulb temperature, which is the controlling variable for the wet towers. In an air-cooled condenser (ACC), the condensing heat is dissipated directly into the atmosphere without using an intermediate medium such as cooling water. Figure 3 shows a typical flow diagram for an ACC. In this arrangement, the steam exhausting the turbine is piped to the condenser by a large diameter duct. The steam condenses in the air-cooled tube bundles. The fin tube bundles are mounted in an A-frame configuration and mounted on a steel structural support. The steam enters the tube bundles at the top of the A frame and condenses in the tube. The heat is removed by air blown over the exterior of the tube bundle surface by a forced draft fan. Non-condensibles are drawn off by air ejection equipment. The condensate drains into a collection tank and is then sent back to the HRSGs feedwater system.
Air Cooled Condenser

Cold CW Makeup Blowdown

Figure 1: Typical Flow Diagram for a Wet Evaporative Cooling Tower Once-Through Cooling A once-through cooling system uses cold water from a nearby river, lake, or ocean and circulates it through the condenser to remove condensation heat and returns the hot water to the source. Because of the relatively lower heat sink temperature compared with wet cooling tower, once-through cooling is the most efficient cycle heat rejection system design. Figure 2 shows a typical flow diagram for a oncethrough cooling system. The heat sink condensation temperature depends on the temperature of the coldwater source. Specially designed intake and outfall structures are
Exhaust Steam

Exhaust steam

Hot CW Cold CW CW Pump(s)

Fans

to HRSG

Figure 2: Typical Flow Diagram for a Once-Through Cooling System

to HRSG

Figure 3: Typical ACC Flow Diagram required to direct the cooling water from the source to the power plant and then back to the source again. The water is first channeled through an intake structure where screening
Page 2 of 8 Copyright 2003 by ASME

Indirect Dry Cooling System (Heller) The indirect dry cooling system uses circulating water to transfer the condensation heat to the air-cooled heat exchanger bundles. Cooled water from the dry cooling tower flows back to a jet condenser causing the turbine exhaust steam to condense. The direct contact between the circulating water and the condensing steam results in a small condenser volume. The ambient dry bulb controls the heat sink temperature in this arrangement. Because the indirect system requires the use of two heat transfer processes (steam condenser and air-cooled heat exchangers), logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) for the overall heat transfer process is lower than for the direct system. This can only be compensated for by using a larger cooling surface, increased cooling airflow, or both. Figure 4 shows a typical flow diagram for an indirect dry cooling system.

Wet-Dry Cooling Tower (Wet Surface Air Cooler) The wet surface air cooler (WSAC) condenses the steam inside tube bundles that are constantly oversprayed with water from the cooling tower basin. The process heat is released to the cascading water and is then transferred from the water to the air stream by vaporization. Motor-driven fans induce airflow over the sprayed tube bundles and discharge the humidified air vertically. Primary cooling is achieved by evaporating the spray water into the air stream. The ambient wet bulb temperature controls the heat sink temperature. Figure 5 shows a typical flow diagram for a WSAC.

Wet Surface Air Condenser Air Fans Air

Exhaust Steam

Direct Contact Condenser Exhaust steam

Condensate

From air cooled heat exchanger

To Boiler

Figure 5: Typical WSAC Flow Diagram HEAT SINK SELECTION The heat sink selection should be initiated in the early stages of project development. The elements that significantly affect the selection of the heat sink option and the overall power plant include: Availability and quality of water Disposal of water Site configuration Once the heat sink has been selected, its performance is optimized based on historical weather data for the wet bulb (relative humidity) and dry bulb temperatures at the site. Equipment design parameters such as approaches, are then determined in order to achieve maximum cycle efficiency at the lowest cost. Availability and Quality of Water A simplified overview of the heat sink selection process based on water availability is presented in Figure 6. If a source of water is identified and abundant cooling water is available, the preferred choice should be a oncethrough system or a wet cooling tower, depending on site configuration. The quality of makeup water, used in cooling tower applications, is another parameter to be taken into consideration. The following makeup water quality and quantity issues need to be addressed during the design of the power plant: Characteristics of the makeup water quantity and quality
Copyright 2003 by ASME

To air cooled heat exchanger

To HRSG

Figure 4: Typical Flow Diagram for a Heller System The circulating water is condensate quality and is circulated in a closed system. The circulating water pumps are equipped with hydraulic energy recovery turbines to recuperate the excess head in the return header from the dry cooling tower. The power recovered by the hydraulic turbines provides part of the pumping power for the circulating water pumps. The indirect dry cooling system incorporates large underground storage tanks to drain the system for maintenance purposes.

Page 3 of 8

Seasonal variations in flow rate due to different heat rejection loads Seasonal variations in water characteristics due to changes in ambient conditions The relative cost (capital and operating) of using various sources of makeup water is shown in Figure 7 below. The graph quantifies the impact of poor water quality and scarcity on the plant cost.

Disposal of Wastewater Another economic consideration is the relative cost of wastewater disposal after wastewater has been concentrated in a wet cooling tower. The options for wastewater discharge depend on the plant location and the local regulations. Wastewater discharge options include stream discharge, creek discharge, sewer discharge, evaporation ponds, and zero discharge.

Is Water Available ? Yes Wet Cooling Once Through Design Wet Evaporative Cooling Wet Surface Air Cooler No Dry Cooling Air Cooled Condenser Heller System

Figure 6: Heat Sink Selection Process Based on Water Availability

Relative Cost of Makeup Water Sources for Heat Sinks

2.50
3 2 1.5 1 0.5
Agricultural waste water Other industrial waste water Sea water oncethrough Sea water evap. cooling Gray water High TDS water

1.00

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.25

1.50

1.75

Surface water oncethrough Surface water evap. cooling

Low TDS water

Makeup Water Source

Figure 7: Cost of Makeup Water Sources for Heat Sinks Relative to Low TDS Water The analysis uses the low total dissolved solids (TDS) water as the basis for comparison for the relative cost. The assessment indicates that use of either agricultural or industrial wastewater will cost 2 to 2.5 times more than low TDS water. Recovering gray water or black water for heat sink use is up to twice the cost of low TDS water because of the complexity of the purification equipment required. Seawater used for oncethrough systems will also be 25 percent more expensive than the base case due to the screening, filtration, and chlorination process.

For the once-through heat sink type, the returning sea or river hot water could be considered as wastewater. There are severe permitting limitations on its thermal discharge temperature and amount. The restrictions can be serious enough to require a reevaluation of the feasibility for this option. The results of a cost analysis conducted to assess the relative cost (capital and operating) of wastewater disposal are summarized in Figure 8:

Page 4 of 8

Black water

Copyright 2003 by ASME

Relative Cost

2.00

2.20

2.5

Relative Cost of Wastewater Disposal for Heat Sinks

4 3 2 1 1.1 1.25 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Impoundment (cooling pond or reservoir)

Permitted outfall of concentrated waste water

Oncethrough

Discharge to water treatment works

Evaporation pond or deep well injection

Wastewater Disposal
Figure 8: Cost of Wastewater Disposal for Heat Sinks Relative to an Impoundment System. The relative costs of several wastewater disposal options were developed using the cooling pond as the basis for comparison. From the analysis, the zero discharge option is the most expensive and could cost as much as four times more than the cooling pond option. Therefore, the zero discharge option should be used only where stringent environmental laws require it. Successful removal of contaminated water for zero discharge conditions involves very complex hardware and systems integration processes. Other disposal alternatives, such as discharge to water treatment plants, are at least twice the basic cost due to associated cost of the water treatment. Site Configuration Each heat sink option has specific layout requirements. For mechanical draft wet cooling towers, spacing and orientation affect thermal performance due to re-circulation and wind direction. Rectangular cooling towers are oriented parallel to the prevailing wind so that the exit air is blown away from the inlet. Once-through cooling systems must be located near a large natural body of water. If the source for the body of water is not nearby, the necessary extended lengths of circulating water piping and larger pumps will increase the equipment cost as well as parasitic pumping power. Under such conditions, a detailed evaluation should be undertaken to confirm the viability of this option. Direct and indirect dry cooling systems require a large amount of space. Their location within the site perimeter should avoid restrictions to the inlet airflow. Air-cooled condensers must be located close to the turbine building to minimize the pressure drop between the steam turbine and the condenser, reducing steam duct cost and improving cycle efficiency. In general, ACCs require a large, symmetrical plot space to accommodate their rectangular
Page 5 of 8

shape. Any irregular lot or unusual site requires creative and unconventional solutions. CYCLING AND COGENERATION CONSIDERATIONS Cycling Considerations The merchant plant concept implies that electric power must be supplied to the grid only when it is commercially justifiable. Such requirements must typically be met on very short notice. Therefore, these plants need to be started up quickly and have flexible operating ranges. Merchant plants are normally in cycling service, which can be considered partload operation or daily on/off operation. Heat sink considerations for a cycling plant include the following: Use an auxiliary boiler to sparge the condenser hotwell to prevent the condensate from subcooling Maintain condenser vacuum during periods of shutdown Use a cooling tower bypass for low load operation Use pre-coat condensate treatment (condensate polisher) with ACC, which may have large surface areas of carbon steel in contact with steam and condensate Include provisions to control all heat sink fans from the control room Cogeneration Applications Cogeneration plants must consider the quality and quantity of water returned to the power plant from the process. Depending on the quality of the returned water, further deaeration and chemical treatment may be necessary. If all the exported water is not returned, additional cycle makeup will
Copyright 2003 by ASME

Zero discharge

Relative Cost

be required. An external deaerator will be required if the total cycle makeup exceeds 3 to 5 percent. For wet cooling towers, plume formation and blowdown disposal are major concerns. To solve the plume problem, the wet cooling tower manufacturers developed systems to abate its formation. However, below certain ambient temperatures, the abatement process becomes ineffective and the plume reappears and gradually increases in size. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Comparative Analysis of Heat Sink Technologies To assess the impact of different heat sink options, a combined cycle plant computer model was developed using a standard, commercially available simulation package (Thermoflow, Inc. software). In our modeling, the plant configuration and ambient conditions were maintained identical for all cases. The only variations allowed were due to the changes in the heat sink parameters. The selected configuration includes two gas turbines, two HRSGs, and one steam turbine. No steam extraction from the cycle was considered. In calculating net power output and heat rate, the specific auxiliary loads associated with each type of heat sink were subtracted. The influence of different heat dissipation options on the plant thermal performance was evaluated using different steam turbine condensing pressures. A higher backpressure results in a lower power output and worse heat rate. On the other hand, the heat dissipation capability of each of the options is dependent on ambient conditions. The thermal performance is dependent on the wet bulb temperature for wet cooling tower and is related to dry bulb temperature for ACC and indirect dry cooling tower. For the once-through condenser using river or seawater, the heat sink temperature for the process is the river or seawater temperature. To produce meaningful results for the comparison, design parameters for condensing and/or heat dissipation equipment sizing, such as approach temperatures, rise, and other applicable criteria, are based on industry trends. The results of the analysis for the thermal performance and associated cost on a comparative basis are illustrated in the bar chart format. Condenser Pressure Figure 9 presents the expected backpressures for each heat sink option. The results are relative, based on the wet cooling tower backpressure equal to 1. A WSAC will have the same backpressure as the wet cooling tower at the same ambient wet bulb temperature. Under these conditions, a plant substituting an ACC or a indirect dry cooling tower for a wet tower will have a backpressure that is approximately 2.1 times higher, because the ACC and indirect dry cooling towers are governed by the dry bulb temperature. In contrast, a oncethrough condenser will have a backpressure that is about 40 percent lower than the base case. Electrical Power Output The electrical power output comparison in Figure 10 shows that the net output is higher at lower heat sink temperatures with corresponding backpressures. The comparison indicates that dry options, such as ACC and indirect dry cooling systems, are about 4 percent to 5 percent lower in power output compared with a wet cooling tower. Direct use of cooling water as shown in the once-through
Page 6 of 8

CONDENSER PRESSURE
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Once thru Cooling Tower WSAC ACC Heller
0.63 1.00 1.00 2.12 2.12

Figure 9: Condenser Pressure Comparison Relative to a Wet Cooling Tower

Com parison of Electrical Pow er Output

1.05 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 Heller ACC

0.95 0.96

1.00

1.00

1.02

Cooling Tower

WSAC

Once thru

Figure 10: Net Electrical Power Output Comparison Relative to a Wet Cooling Tower

Comparison of the plant heat rate for various heat sinks

1.06 1.04 1.02 1 0.98 0.96 0.94
1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05

0.98

Once thru

WSAC

Cooling Tower

ACC

Heller

Figure 11: Net Plant Heat Rate Comparison Relative to a Wet Cooling Tower condenser could yield approximately 2 percent more power output. Heat Rate The impact on the net plant heat rate is shown in Figure 11. A once-through condenser option will have a 2 percent better heat rate than the wet cooling tower. For this option it should be emphasized that, in addition to lower condensing pressure and temperature, the auxiliary loads are
Copyright 2003 by ASME

Comparison of water usage for different heat sink options

46.22 5 4 3 2 1 0

ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES OF HEAT SINK TECHNOLOGIES The advantages and challenges of each heat sink option compared with the wet cooling tower are summarized in Table 1 and presented below. Once-Through System The advantages of this system are lower installed costs, lower operating costs, lower auxiliary loads, and a higher cycle efficiency compared with a wet cooling tower. The challenges of this design include higher makeup water requirements, complexity of intake and outfall structure design, and limitation on thermal discharge. Wet Cooling Tower The current trend in the fossil power industry is to use wet cooling towers if water is available at site. Because this design is often used in power plants, it is considered the base case for the purposes of discussion in this paper. The advantages of this system are moderate installed and operating costs, auxiliary loads with moderate makeup water requirements, and relatively good cycle efficiency. The challenges of this design include cooling tower blowdown disposal, plume formation at colder ambient temperatures, and water treatment chemical disposal. Dry Cooling with Air-Cooled Condenser The advantages of this system are that water usage requirements are minimal and that no issues are associated with blowdown disposal and plume formation. The challenges of this design are higher installed costs, relatively higher noise emissions, larger footprint, and lower cycle efficiency than the base case. Indirect Dry Cooling System The advantages of this system are lower auxiliary loads, low noise, minimal water usage requirements, and absence of issues associated with blowdown disposal and plume formation. The challenges of this design are higher installed costs, relatively larger footprint, and lower cycle efficiency, but better than that of the ACC. An increased quantity of oxygen scavenger is also required because the jet condenser achieves an oxygen level of only 15 to 20 ppb in the condensate, which is higher than the typical values seen in a deaerating condenser. Wet Surface Air Cooler The advantages of this system are lower auxiliary loads, low noise, and slightly lower water usage requirements. The wet surface cooler has a direct approach to the wet bulb. This provides more efficient cooling than an ACC, which has an approach to the dry bulb. At this time, this technology is not widely accepted in power plant applications.

1.02 0.00 ACC 0.00 Heller WSAC

1.00

Cooling Tower

Once thru

Figure 12: Makeup Water Usage Comparison Relative to a Wet Cooling Tower

Comparison of installed costs for different heat sink options

5 4 3 2 1 0
3.8 2.70 0.64 0.99 1.00

Once thru

WSAC

Cooling Tower

Heller

ACC

Figure 13: Total Installed Cost Comparison Relative to a Wet Cooling Tower relatively smaller. The net plant heat rate of dry tower options such as ACC and indirect dry cooling systems can be about 5 percent worse than that of the wet cooling tower. Makeup Water An additional comparison of the use of cooling water is given in Figure 12. The reference to makeup water in this paper is related only to the needs of the water as cooling media and not as the plant cycle makeup. As expected, the indirect dry cooling system and ACC do not use any water. In a once-through condenser, the cooling water, in an open loop configuration uses 46 times more water than a wet cooling tower, where the water is cooled and recycled. Total Installed Cost The total installed cost for each of the options is given in Figure 13. Installed costs for once-through designs may vary, depending on the distance to the water source from site location. The cost of the wet cooling tower includes a separate surface condenser. Dry heat sinks are about three to four times more expensive than the conventional wet cooling tower. The oncethrough option is about 40 percent less expensive than the wet cooling tower.

Page 7 of 8

Copyright 2003 by ASME

Table 1: Advantages and Challenges of Heat Sink Options Wet Cooling Tower Base Installed cost Base Aux. Loads Base Cycle Efficiency Base Noise Base Land Usage Base Make-Up Water Usage Base Wastewater Disposal requirements Base Chemical Usage Once-Thru Lower Lower Higher Lower Lower Higher Higher Lower ACC Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Lower Lower Lower Heller Higher Higher Lower Higher Higher Lower Lower Lower WSAC Almost Same Lower Lower Lower Higher Almost Same Lower Almost Same

CONCLUSION The heat sink option is often governed by factors such as site configuration, availability of water, and water disposal. The heat sink option selection process should be initiated in the early stages of project development to take this into account. The plant performance in terms of power output and efficiency is best for the once-through option and worst for the indirect dry cooling system. The installed cost is highest for the ACC, closely followed by the indirect dry cooling system unit and lowest for the once-through system. The highest amount of make-up water will be consumed by the oncethrough option, while the indirect dry cooling system will consume the least. The probability of plume formation is greatest for the wet cooling option, whereas it is almost zero for the dry cooling systems such as ACC and Heller. The noise level is highest for the ACC, while it is almost zero for the once-through system. The wet cooling tower will generate the most wastewater for disposal, while dry systems such as ACC and indirect dry cooling will produce almost zero wastewater for disposal. The amount of real estate space needed is greatest for the indirect dry cooling option and least for the once-through system. The relative cost of make-up water and the cost of wastewater disposal are also important considerations in the selection of heat sink options. The plants using black water or industrial wastewater have much higher costs. An expensive alternative for wastewater disposal will be zero discharge, with a disposal cost possibly four times that of a cooling pond. The selection of a heat sink option is often site-specific and is based on variables that include water availability, site configuration, water disposal, ambient conditions, level of target power output, anticipated hours of operation, Power Purchase Agreement structure, and Owners economic

evaluation factors for plant output, heat rate, and operations and maintenance costs. While it is difficult to make any specific recommendations, the following conclusions would be valid for a majority of situations: For sites with scarce water resources, dry cooling systems such as the ACC and indirect dry cooling options will most likely be the preferred choice. For regions with adequate water availability and provisions for water disposal, wet cooling systems such wet cooling tower and WSAC will most likely be the preferred choice. For sites with a nearby river, ocean, lake, etc., oncethrough and/or wet cooling tower will be the option of choice. For regions near residential areas where noise is an issue, ACC may not be preferred. For peaking applications where electricity can be sold at a high price, once-through or wet cooling tower may offer a reasonable solution. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Sam Keith and Dave Ugolini, from Bechtel, for their valuable contributions and comments regarding this paper.

Page 8 of 8

Copyright 2003 by ASME